Chapter 4: Research Design and Methods
4.2 Methods of Observation and Data Collection
4.2.1 Methods
were considered to address the research objectives, which were, (i) to understand the values and perceptions of the community towards the existence and future management of Ntabamhlophe indigenous state forest, and (ii) to determine the different types of forest products and resources use by the community and their values to the users (cultural, spiritual or economic values).
The study objectives were presented and discussed in a community meeting.
A pilot survey was undertaken with the community. Thereafter, the focus groups were identified based on the existing traditional wards and user interests (Figure 3). The study objectives were also presented and discussed in a wise counsel meeting. Wise counsel refers to individuals who were currently and previously use the forest and had knowledge, experience and interest in the subject matter. Both the focus group and wise counsel were given the same questionnaire schedule to fill (Appendix 1). The arrows in Figure 3, illustrates the interaction (sequence of events) from the questionnaire design to research findings and conclusions. Double arrows indicate that there were two way interaction, whereas single arrows indicate the direction in which the interaction was happening.
Figure 3: Focus Group and Wise Counsel: Group interaction flow chart
Furthermore, to enhance transparency and researcher integrity, community members were made aware that the researcher is a Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife employee. However, the research project was part of the University of KwaZulu-Natal’s academic requirements for the degree of Masters in Environment and Development. It should be noted that being an Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife employee might have an influence on eDashi ward which refused to be part of the research. However, the researcher was not in Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife uniform. Furthermore, the majority of the Ntabamhlophe community members indicated that they would like Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife to be involved in developing appropriate forest management system.
There were no comprehensible reasons given by eDashi’s two representatives for not wanting to take part in the research except that the research should wait for migrant workers who normally return home during the December holidays. eDashi representatives felt that migrant workers are the key stakeholders. In my view the issue of migrant workers was a convenient excuse to refuse participation. Furthermore, all community and focus group
Questionnaire Design
(Study Objectives)
Pilot Test
(Questionnaire)
Community
(Meeting)
Wise Counsel
(Meeting)
Research Findings, Conclusions
and
Recommendations Analyses of Results Wise Counsel
Questionnaire Schedule Questionnaire
Responses
(Focus Group)
Focus Groups Focus Group Identification
meetings were publicly announced in all traditional wards including eDashi.
With the exception of eDashi which was represented by two individuals, all traditional wards were fairly represented.
To enhance the quality of information, the focus group was used in conjunction with wise counsel. By using focus group, different age and gender groups, and wise counsel were engaged to gather information on forest use and values. This also ensured a fair focus group representation. By using focus groups, more information was gathered through the use of a researcher who asked prompting questions, to elicit more information on answers; the researcher asked for more clarifying information (Appendix 1).
An added advantage of using the focus group technique is the fact that the researcher (moderator) assists to keep the group focussed and to record conversations. Considering Ntabamhlophe community dynamics and resource use complexity, this technique was useful. Complexities include issues of transparency and trust between community and government officials. In this context ‘government officials’ had no reference to the researcher. There was also an issue of mistrust among community members. Some of the information given by the focus group was prompted by the researcher during the discussion.
Feedback and clarification during discussions was also useful to understand or eliminate different meanings. The discussions were transparent while responses were reached on consensus. Through discussions, a consensus answer was called for and recorded in a single questionnaire schedule (Appendix 1). There were no further analyses beyond recorded consensus answer. Each focus group was expected to give one consensus answer, if there was a disagreement, then the focus group was allowed to deliberate on a issue until they agree on a consensus answer. It is acknowledged that some useful information might have been lost due to consensus approach. It is also acknowledged that based on focus individual member’s personal experience, some individuals might disagree with the focus group members. However, this was not the case at Ntabamhlophe. Furthermore, the information gathered
from the focus groups was also cross-referenced with other focus groups and the wise counsel.
Drawing on Welman et al. (2005), the focus group method had an added advantage because questions and information could be explained. It also helped to cross-reference information within the groups (Nabasa, 1995 and Welman et al., 2005). For complex socially dynamic situations like Ntabamhlophe, it provided more in-depth information on the subject matter.
The interactive setting assisted in drawing out and facilitating the emergence or clarification of new ideas. During the discussions at the meeting, Ntabamhlophe focus group was offered an opportunity to seek clarity on any question related to the research. This helped both the respondents and the researcher to gain a better understanding of the issues.
The respondents provided additional useful information such as land claims, ancestral graves and alien plant control issues. This information would not have been acquired if it was not prompted and recorded during group deliberations. Furthermore, the focus group tended to give historical background before giving or reaching consensus answers. The Traditional Healers Association focus group was the largest group, with 21 members instead of six to 12 as recommended for the focus group method. This was an anomaly. However, it was accepted as a “specific interest group” and a recognised community structure which represented forest user group interests.
Focus group research results depend on the relevance of the method and researcher interaction with the community and the focus group (Nabasa, 1995 and Welman et al., 2005). Ntabamhlophe focus group was cooperative with the researcher. At Ntabamhlophe it is believed that the negative attitude of some community members to protect the forest has not changed from prior to 1997. In 1995, the Ntabamhlophe community together with the Mhlungwini Traditional Authority approached Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, (former Natal Parks Board) to assist in developing an appropriate Ntabamhlophe forest and the mountain management strategy. The proceedings in the meeting were
interrupted by a group of men claiming that the Traditional Authority betrayed them by giving the area to Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife.
It is acknowledged that some individuals were less willing to reveal sensitive information e.g. traditional healers provided information on what certain medicinal plants are used for. However, the information was shared between respondents as to why some of the information could not be publicly divulged (Chapter 6, section 6.8.2). Understandably, at Ntabamhlophe some traditional healers were reluctant to divulge information on medicinal plant uses.
However, when using focus group, a spirit of discussion assisted in revealing more information than anyone might get through formal interviews or other methods. Through varying experience and knowledge within the focus group members it helped to bring out valuable information such as why there were community woodlots and ancestral graves in the area.
The focus group method has an element of participatory rural appraisal.
According to Chambers (1983), Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) is a process centred on a principle that seeks multiple perspectives through group enquiry. It helps the researcher to learn directly from the community members (Nabasa, 1995). A combination of the focus group and wise counsel approach was used by administering a structured questionnaire schedule (Appendix 1).
However, the information from the wise counsel was only used for cross- referencing. This was helpful in research results analyses (Figure 3). At each focus group meeting, one questionnaire schedule was filled by the group from section B to D (Appendix 1).
Based on the quality of information required by the project, this method was appropriate and preferred to achieve project objectives Table 3 in Chapter 2 reflects method advantages and disadvantages. To avoid compulsion and inferior quality responses, voluntary participation among forest user groups was strongly encouraged. As a result eDashi ward was not forced to partake in the research (Chapter 6, section 6.8.1). Focus group method was found to be easy to use, technically correct, practically efficient and ethically sound to get acquired results.
Due to historical Ntabamhlophe forest management complexities, the information gathered from the focus group was cross-referenced with those of the wise counsel. de Vaus (2002) states that qualitative methods are often regarded as providing rich data about real life people. The social dynamics of the Ntabamhlophe situation and the quality of information required by the project required the use of this method as an appropriate and preferred method to achieve the project objectives. As Ottke, et al. (2000) have shown local communities possess profound knowledge of their ecosystems.
Interacting with local communities through focus group approach assisted to ensure that such valuable information is recorded. The focus group technique has shown to be effective because it provides collaboration and interactive sessions for members.